Reply To: SCOTUS Denies to Hear Muniz

#36709
Avatar
Josh

I suggest you all read this decision based off Muniz and Derhammer
Commonwealth v. Neiman, 84 A.3d 603 (Pa. 2013), invalidated Act 2004-152 — which included Megan’s Law III — in its entirety. Neiman at 615. In Derhammer, the Commonwealth successfully argued to the Superior Court that in light of Megan’s Law III being a nullity, the Commonwealth could still be deemed to be charging under Megan’s Law II. The Supreme Court found that they could not, and as Justice Wecht explained in his concurrence in Derhammer, Megan’s Law II was not revived automatically upon Megan’s Law III’s invalidation. As a result of the decision in Derhammer, the Court must dismiss the charges in the above captioned matter.
SAMUEL ALLEN MCHENRY, Defendant
http://www.lycolaw.org/Cases/opinions/2018/McHenry010918bt.pdf